A validity framework for evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 47-57

  Marion, Scott F ^a,c   Pellegrino, James W ^b  

^a National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Inc

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternate assessment; Psychology of achievement testing; Technical documentation; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846422008     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00078.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Edu cation (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Becker, D. F., & Camilli, G. (2004, September). Standardizing the Standards: In search of uniform guidelines for state technical reports. NCME Newsletter, 12(3), 6-8.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
4. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
6. Gong, B., & Marion, S. F. (2006). Dealing with flexibility in assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Synthesis Report 60). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/nceo/Online Pubs/Synthesis60. html.
7. Haertel, E. H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5-9.
8. Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (2006). Learning Characteristics Inventory (LCI) Report. National Alternate Assessment Center, Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington. http://www. naacpartners.org/Products/Files/Research_Focus_LCI.pdf
9. Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Towles-Reeves, E. (2005). The assessment triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of student cognition. National Alternate Assessment Center, Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington. http://www. naacpartners.org/Products/Files/NAAC%20 Assmt%20Triangle%20White%20Paper%20- %20FINAL%20for%20Website.pdf
10. Lane, S., & Stone, A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21 (2), 23-30.
11. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
12. Livingston, S. A. & Lewis, C. (1995). Estimating the consistency and accuracy of classifications based on test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 179-197.
13. Marion, S., Quenemoen, R., & Kearns, J., (2006). Inclusive assessment system options: Degree of standardization and flexibility worksheets. Working papers from NHEAI/NAAC Collaborative Projects.
14. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education, Macmillan Publishing.
15. Messick, S. (1995). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
16. Mislevy, R. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(4), 379-416.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107-110, 115 Stat.1425 (2002).
18. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
19. Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePu bs/Synthesis43.html.
20. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
21. Shepard, L. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5-24.
22. Smith, J. K. (2003). Reconsidering reliability in classroom assessment and grading. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 26-33.
23. Thompson, S., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.